1. "Pilgrims." The author consistently makes comparative references to pilgrims to the American continent. This is disingenious.
For the homesteaders, the cost of expansion was very low. Their technological advantage allowed them to drive out the native inhabitants with relative ease. Their infrastructure requirements were minimal, but most importantly, there was fruitful land to be taken at very low cost.
Not so with seafaring. Your "land" must be planned and built up-front at substantial cost. Once you've built your "land", you're stuck with that design. You can't just take more "land", since it would require building an entire new platform, once again at substantial cost. What happens when your platform capable of supporting 1000 people can no longer support its growing population? Do you kick people off? Who decides who stays and who leaves? And who would be willing to live with the sword of Damocles over their heads, knowing that at some point in the future, they could be ousted by the council of elders, forced to leave their home and friends, to fend for themselves?
2. Maintenance. The author is very opposed to taxation, and yet the very nature of seafaring incurs substantial maintenance costs. Who will bear those costs? Who will collect the funds? How will you handle disputes over the taxation rate, or people who refuse to pay?
3. Wealth generation. This one was particularly poorly thought out. Tourism? The amount of space dedicated to tourism would have to be so huge to offset the living costs that I don't see this contributing in any meaningful way to economic surplus. Manufacturing dangerous goods? Space ports? Who would want to live near such places? All of the possibilities offered were of small economic value. Any balance of trade would tilt massively in favor of land based economies.
4. Expulsion. How and when do you expel members of the community? Do you write a set of laws, with the more severe prescribing exile? How about people who fall behind in their financial obligations (i.e. taxation) for one reason or another (for example, someone gets sick and can't pay their bills on their salary)? That works well for those on the top, but for those at the bottom of the totem pole, it would be intolerable.
5. Government. I realize that the author is a libertarian, but this worship of the "corporate" government as some sort of panacea is really naive. A corporation is a despotic form of government. Despotism is very well suited to small communities, but still suffers from the flaws of all governments: tyranny. Anyone who has spent time dealing with corporate politics will know how much it resembles swimming in shark infested waters. Political rot builds up, and is all but impossible to remove. Psychopaths make their way to the top and rule with an iron fist, making the company financially profitable, but a nightmare for those who work there.
6. War. The author glosses over arguments of war by hand waving that it might not be as bad as with historical autonomous governments, or that "war drives away trade". Historically, this has not deterred those who bear a grudge. Furthermore, outright armed conflict is unlikely to be the norm. Far easier to simply sabotage the rival platform, since damage to a sea platform is orders of magnitude more devastating than damage to land.
7. "You can just leave if you don't like it." This always makes me laugh. Leaving is not something simple like changing washing powder brands. Leaving involves uprooting your entire life, leaving friends & family, giving up all agreements, titles and numerous other intangible benefits, and then starting over with only whatever money you have in a new place where you don't know other people. The barrier is actually quite huge, especially when the community is small. It's even worse for people who are born on the platform, but don't agree with its politics. You know, just like libertarians who are born in a country but don't like its politics. You can always just leave, right?
1) Pilgrims. I would imagine moving to a foreign land full of potentially hostile natives is a bit riskier than living at sea. So that cost needs to be factored in. For certain purposes we already know that people are willing to pay a premium for living in a more friendly jurisdiction. For example, there's a huge premium for living in Bermuda. As for deciding who goes and who leaves? That's for the owners of the seastead. I can't imagine it will be as bad as what governments do now.
2) Maintenance. There are lots of options. My guess is that maintenance will be baked into rents or usage fees, just like in every other line of business. As for enforcing contracts, that's where the owner of the seastead will be careful about who they allow in.
3) Wealth generation. There's a few ideas here. First is simply regulatory arbitrage. Just like tax/regulatory havens like Bermuda, Caymen's etc. This could take the form of housing immigrant workers (like Blueseed) or financial firms (like the CBCs) or medical tourism (which might not work because the AMA will crack down on it).
4) Expulsion. That's a good point and would have to be addressed in the contracts signed by the customers of the seastead. I don't think "Expulsion" is the problem here, I think it's more an issue of contract enforcement. My guess is the seastead would have to be very careful about who they grant access to. This isn't a problem of early adopters. This is a problem of scale. But it is a very legitimate concern.
5) Government. I deal with corporate politics everyday. I would prefer to deal with corporate politics over any interaction with the federal government or the state of California any day. Just going to the DMV is a nightmare. As for greedy executives making companies a nightmare to work for. My recommendation is simple. Get a job at one that is not. That's my plan. Unfortunately, I can't do that quite as easily with the state or federal government.
6) War. If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems. I'm sure that happens now and how do we address that problem? Through security measures. Likewise on seasteads. There's just no way to live in a perfect world, we don't now and seasteads won't solve that problem. If you're referring to actual armed conflicts, that's not a big problem with island westernized technologically advanced island nations now, why would it be under seasteading. My guess is that the early adopters will be silicon valley tech types and other high skilled workers, not crystal meth gangs.
7) "You can just leave" Yes, leaving is sometimes hard. That's called "life" and it's no different than the way things are now. I left my friends, family, and work colleagues to move to the SF Bay Area. It was the best decision of my life. Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept...I'll let you guess which one it is (hint: it's flag is red, white, and blue).
Honestly, I appreciate your critique. I am disappointed in the book. It is not doing it's job of clearly communicating the pros and cons of seasteading. If it did, I think you would have more thorough answers to the concerns you raise.
"I would prefer to deal with corporate politics over any interaction with the federal government or the state of California any day. Just going to the DMV is a nightmare."
Yes, but this is not a problem of government type, but rather of population size. I've worked in 10,000 person corporations before, and interactions are so full of bureaucratic nonsense that it's amazing you're able to get anything done at all. This is a human problem, not a political system problem. Once you go over the human capacity to know everyone (107 people), you get bureaucracy. This is why ancient tribes would split soon after passing around 120 people. Of course back then the cost of splitting was low since there was plenty of land to go around, and you could just kill anyone who hunted in your territory without worry of an international community.
"If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems."
Actually, I'm talking about destroying a platform's economic foundation by causing physical damage to the platform that's expensive to fix. A man made floating platform is far more susceptible to attacks of this nature than land based communities. Furthermore, a community with no form of taxation would be ill equipped to deal with this sort of thing since the costs could exceed the amount in the contractual agreement.
"Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept."
What I'm getting at is this: YOU might be happy uprooting yourself and seeking greener pastures, but do not make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way you do or would enjoy it if they just gave it a chance. The vast majority of people don't want to move. They want to stay right where they are. It's only when things become so intolerable at home that moving seems the less painful choice where these people move (and indeed that was quite often the case with people choosing the "new world"). You might argue that this sort of person wouldn't move to a sea platform to begin with, but I'm talking about people born on the platform, who wish to remain rooted, and know no other life.
The author critiques the social contract with the following words: "Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her."
I'd argue that after a generation or two of people born there, platform life will be no different.
In fact, most of my argument is not regarding people MOVING to a sea platform, but rather for people born there, and what choice they have.
Where exactly would one put a space port on a seastead? The minimum safe distance for a launch at Kennedy is something like 2 miles. And launching anything into space from a floating platform . . . let's just say that the basic laws of the universe are not on your side.
A detachable or detached launch platform would be trivially feasible -- at least at the scale of triviality in which one envisions seasteads in the first place.
We've been launching ballistic rockets from submerged platforms for ... oh, a half century or so now. Space launches for most intents.
Comments
I just read the whole book. Here are my comments:
1. "Pilgrims." The author consistently makes comparative references to pilgrims to the American continent. This is disingenious. For the homesteaders, the cost of expansion was very low. Their technological advantage allowed them to drive out the native inhabitants with relative ease. Their infrastructure requirements were minimal, but most importantly, there was fruitful land to be taken at very low cost.
Not so with seafaring. Your "land" must be planned and built up-front at substantial cost. Once you've built your "land", you're stuck with that design. You can't just take more "land", since it would require building an entire new platform, once again at substantial cost. What happens when your platform capable of supporting 1000 people can no longer support its growing population? Do you kick people off? Who decides who stays and who leaves? And who would be willing to live with the sword of Damocles over their heads, knowing that at some point in the future, they could be ousted by the council of elders, forced to leave their home and friends, to fend for themselves?
2. Maintenance. The author is very opposed to taxation, and yet the very nature of seafaring incurs substantial maintenance costs. Who will bear those costs? Who will collect the funds? How will you handle disputes over the taxation rate, or people who refuse to pay?
3. Wealth generation. This one was particularly poorly thought out. Tourism? The amount of space dedicated to tourism would have to be so huge to offset the living costs that I don't see this contributing in any meaningful way to economic surplus. Manufacturing dangerous goods? Space ports? Who would want to live near such places? All of the possibilities offered were of small economic value. Any balance of trade would tilt massively in favor of land based economies.
4. Expulsion. How and when do you expel members of the community? Do you write a set of laws, with the more severe prescribing exile? How about people who fall behind in their financial obligations (i.e. taxation) for one reason or another (for example, someone gets sick and can't pay their bills on their salary)? That works well for those on the top, but for those at the bottom of the totem pole, it would be intolerable.
5. Government. I realize that the author is a libertarian, but this worship of the "corporate" government as some sort of panacea is really naive. A corporation is a despotic form of government. Despotism is very well suited to small communities, but still suffers from the flaws of all governments: tyranny. Anyone who has spent time dealing with corporate politics will know how much it resembles swimming in shark infested waters. Political rot builds up, and is all but impossible to remove. Psychopaths make their way to the top and rule with an iron fist, making the company financially profitable, but a nightmare for those who work there.
6. War. The author glosses over arguments of war by hand waving that it might not be as bad as with historical autonomous governments, or that "war drives away trade". Historically, this has not deterred those who bear a grudge. Furthermore, outright armed conflict is unlikely to be the norm. Far easier to simply sabotage the rival platform, since damage to a sea platform is orders of magnitude more devastating than damage to land.
7. "You can just leave if you don't like it." This always makes me laugh. Leaving is not something simple like changing washing powder brands. Leaving involves uprooting your entire life, leaving friends & family, giving up all agreements, titles and numerous other intangible benefits, and then starting over with only whatever money you have in a new place where you don't know other people. The barrier is actually quite huge, especially when the community is small. It's even worse for people who are born on the platform, but don't agree with its politics. You know, just like libertarians who are born in a country but don't like its politics. You can always just leave, right?
1) Pilgrims. I would imagine moving to a foreign land full of potentially hostile natives is a bit riskier than living at sea. So that cost needs to be factored in. For certain purposes we already know that people are willing to pay a premium for living in a more friendly jurisdiction. For example, there's a huge premium for living in Bermuda. As for deciding who goes and who leaves? That's for the owners of the seastead. I can't imagine it will be as bad as what governments do now.
2) Maintenance. There are lots of options. My guess is that maintenance will be baked into rents or usage fees, just like in every other line of business. As for enforcing contracts, that's where the owner of the seastead will be careful about who they allow in.
3) Wealth generation. There's a few ideas here. First is simply regulatory arbitrage. Just like tax/regulatory havens like Bermuda, Caymen's etc. This could take the form of housing immigrant workers (like Blueseed) or financial firms (like the CBCs) or medical tourism (which might not work because the AMA will crack down on it).
4) Expulsion. That's a good point and would have to be addressed in the contracts signed by the customers of the seastead. I don't think "Expulsion" is the problem here, I think it's more an issue of contract enforcement. My guess is the seastead would have to be very careful about who they grant access to. This isn't a problem of early adopters. This is a problem of scale. But it is a very legitimate concern.
5) Government. I deal with corporate politics everyday. I would prefer to deal with corporate politics over any interaction with the federal government or the state of California any day. Just going to the DMV is a nightmare. As for greedy executives making companies a nightmare to work for. My recommendation is simple. Get a job at one that is not. That's my plan. Unfortunately, I can't do that quite as easily with the state or federal government.
6) War. If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems. I'm sure that happens now and how do we address that problem? Through security measures. Likewise on seasteads. There's just no way to live in a perfect world, we don't now and seasteads won't solve that problem. If you're referring to actual armed conflicts, that's not a big problem with island westernized technologically advanced island nations now, why would it be under seasteading. My guess is that the early adopters will be silicon valley tech types and other high skilled workers, not crystal meth gangs.
7) "You can just leave" Yes, leaving is sometimes hard. That's called "life" and it's no different than the way things are now. I left my friends, family, and work colleagues to move to the SF Bay Area. It was the best decision of my life. Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept...I'll let you guess which one it is (hint: it's flag is red, white, and blue).
Honestly, I appreciate your critique. I am disappointed in the book. It is not doing it's job of clearly communicating the pros and cons of seasteading. If it did, I think you would have more thorough answers to the concerns you raise.
"I would prefer to deal with corporate politics over any interaction with the federal government or the state of California any day. Just going to the DMV is a nightmare."
Yes, but this is not a problem of government type, but rather of population size. I've worked in 10,000 person corporations before, and interactions are so full of bureaucratic nonsense that it's amazing you're able to get anything done at all. This is a human problem, not a political system problem. Once you go over the human capacity to know everyone (107 people), you get bureaucracy. This is why ancient tribes would split soon after passing around 120 people. Of course back then the cost of splitting was low since there was plenty of land to go around, and you could just kill anyone who hunted in your territory without worry of an international community.
"If you're talking about wars between firms, a much bigger problem is rival firms hacking one another's computer systems."
Actually, I'm talking about destroying a platform's economic foundation by causing physical damage to the platform that's expensive to fix. A man made floating platform is far more susceptible to attacks of this nature than land based communities. Furthermore, a community with no form of taxation would be ill equipped to deal with this sort of thing since the costs could exceed the amount in the contractual agreement.
"Yes, I left a lot behind, but I gained a lot more. In case you haven't noticed, there's a whole country built on this concept."
What I'm getting at is this: YOU might be happy uprooting yourself and seeking greener pastures, but do not make the mistake of assuming that everyone else thinks the same way you do or would enjoy it if they just gave it a chance. The vast majority of people don't want to move. They want to stay right where they are. It's only when things become so intolerable at home that moving seems the less painful choice where these people move (and indeed that was quite often the case with people choosing the "new world"). You might argue that this sort of person wouldn't move to a sea platform to begin with, but I'm talking about people born on the platform, who wish to remain rooted, and know no other life.
The author critiques the social contract with the following words: "Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives, from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean and perish, the moment he leaves her."
I'd argue that after a generation or two of people born there, platform life will be no different.
In fact, most of my argument is not regarding people MOVING to a sea platform, but rather for people born there, and what choice they have.
Where exactly would one put a space port on a seastead? The minimum safe distance for a launch at Kennedy is something like 2 miles. And launching anything into space from a floating platform . . . let's just say that the basic laws of the universe are not on your side.
A detachable or detached launch platform would be trivially feasible -- at least at the scale of triviality in which one envisions seasteads in the first place.
We've been launching ballistic rockets from submerged platforms for ... oh, a half century or so now. Space launches for most intents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(launch_platform)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broglio_Space_Centre